Navaleye,
thank you for your analysis of the conflict from which I have just returned. I think you also said to another poster: Your arugment lack credibility because you were not there. Yet again a complete failure to acknowledge facts. If we had a carrier on station, it would have had its own AEW and not needed AAR and got the job done much cheaper. Despite all. the BS, light Blue have contributed less than 10% of the sorties. SSNs and TLAMs for precision strike. CVS and Harriers for CAS and Apache for local. No other assets would be needed and the whole thing could have been done at a fraction of the price. Now, don't get me wrong - I do think carriers are useful, but I can categorically say that in this conflict they have not been essential - and actually, as long as we'd had the jets, I don't think we'd really have missed them on many occasions. The point to be made here is at the start of the thread - someone in MoD has been briefing journalists something wildly inaccurate just to keep the carrier question in the news. I thank Jimlad for his balanced view - I, too, am immensely impressed by what BROCKLESBY and the TLAM shooters achieved. I have some inside info on Liverpool so so less impressed there, but that should not detract. Frankly I have found the RN to be a really professional lot wherever I have found them, but all this carping and spinning that a carrier can do the job of the RAF is not helping anyone in Defence - including the RN, who are in my opinion being sold down the river to protect a totemic capability while their surface fleet (which really delivers, and is what they should be concentrating on) creaks with overtasking. Jimlad, I was involved in delivering the show-and-tell the other week, so thanks for the feedback! |
My point was simply this. If our witless government had kept our Harrier capability we could have put 16 Harriers in theatre at a fraction of the cost of what we have paid. The French and Italians both deployed naval aviation because it was ideally suited to the job. Launching Storm Shadow strikes from Marham was sheer madness. We and the USN had more than enough TLAM capability nearby to do the job.
|
Sorry, but it's clear you either don't know enough about the situation or haven't read the previous posts, and those on other forums.
The French and Italians deployed carrier aviation, but as a small part of their overall effort and it was not by any means critical to the effort. It wasn't "ideally suited to the job", or there would have been some observable difference between what we got out of carrier-borne air and land-based air. Actually, there wasn't. If you think that TLAM could have done the job of Storm Shadow, clearly you don't know enough about the weapons. The USN fired something like 102 TLAM on the first night, but the USAF still needed to drop several times that many bombs, and Storm Shadow was required as well - TLAM has a comparatively small warhead (just under a 500lb yield) and no penetrative capability. It has basically no capability against bunkers and other hardened targets. I would very much like to have kept the Harrier in the RAF inventory, but even if we had been able to afford it it would not have replaced the capability provided by Tornado and Typhoon. Don't forget that Italy deployed AV8s on Garibaldi - and frankly, they didn't bring much to the party. Always difficult to measure, but it is clear that the Italian Typhoons contributed more than their AV8s. If you wanted to spend a fraction of what we paid by sending a carrier, the implication is that we would not have deployed out AAR, AWACS, Sentinel, Nimrod R1, comms fleet, ISTAR ground facilities etc etc. You are deluding yourself if you believe you can run an air campaign from a carrier - even the US wouldn't do that. Focussing on what fast jets provide is the mark of a rank amateur in air power terms. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.